On 30 May 2018, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation on an enhanced European Social Fund Plus, taking on board several CoR recommendations from its opinion on the "Mid-term review of the ESF preparing the post-2020 proposal", such as:
Importance of a new legally binding Common Strategic Framework covering all EU policies, maintaining the existing multifund territorial delivery tools (CLLD and ITI): PARTLY ACCEPTED - although the CSF has been completely deleted from the CPR, the existing multifund territorial delivery tools (CLLD and ITI) have been maintained;
stronger results orientation and greater simplification: ACCEPTED
call for a closer relation between the proportion of socially excluded people and the allocation of resources: ACCEPTED
need to strike a balance and avoid duplication between planned investments in social capital co-financed under the ESF and social, skills and human capital investment under a possible future InvestEU Fund: ACCEPTED
the importance for border regions of promoting true cross-border labour mobility by removing barriers in labour law and social security: PARTLY ACCEPTED - a specific support to employers and job-seekers (…) in certain sectors, professions, countries, border regions or for particular groups should be provided through the EaSI strand under direct and indirect management
the need to coordinate the strategies and objectives that should exist between the Social Pillar and the ESF; urge that within the 20 key principles contained in the Pillar, those which are relevant should be reflected in the programmes supported by the ESF: ACCEPTED
the principles of the social pillar should be implemented in the context of ESF programming with due regard for the need to develop integrated measures that reflect specific subnational situations and medium-term EU job market trends: PARTLY ACCEPTED - the principles of the EPSR will be inserted through a closer link to the European Semester and by taking on board relevant CSRs. However, subnational needs and issues are still not sufficiently into relevant CSRs